You are here: / / Plaintiff Was Unable to Pinpoint the Cause of Her Fall—“Feigned...

Plaintiff Was Unable to Pinpoint the Cause of Her Fall—“Feigned Issue” Raised In an Affidavit Could Not Stave Off Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of her fall was fatal to the lawsuit:

“A plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of her fall is fatal to a claim of negligence in a slip-and-fall case because a finding that the defendant’s negligence, if any, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries would be based on speculation” … . Here, the the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without resorting to speculation … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion, in which she identified the cause of her fall as “water or cleaning liquid that was on the floor,” merely raised what clearly appears to be a feigned issue of fact designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier deposition testimony … . Trapani v Yonkers Racing Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 00357, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS, NOTWITHSTANDING A NO ORAL WAIVER CLAUSE.
A SEX OFFENDER MAY PETITION ANNUALLY FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION; SUCH A PETITION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY PRIOR PETITIONS WITHIN A YEAR SEEKING OTHER RELIEF UNDER THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT), ​
Question of Fact Whether Employer Considered Accommodation for Plaintiff’s Injury—Summary Judgment to Employer Should Not Have Been Granted
THE CITY NEED NOT PROVE THE POLICE CORROBORATED INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AN INFORMANT IN A CIVIL ACTION FOR FALSE ARREST STEMMING FROM THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT BASED UPON ‘BAD CI INFORMATION’ (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE TRIALS OF TWO ACTIONS STEMMING FROM THE SAME FIRE, WHERE ONE PARTY WAS BOTH A DEFENDANT AND A PLAINTIFF, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ANY PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM THE JURY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF INSURANCE (ONE OF THE ACTIONS IS AGAINST AN INSURER) CAN BE HANDLED WITH JURY INSTRUCTIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
Jury Verdict Finding No Negligence Reversed on Appeal/Article 16 Defenses Re: Negligence of Non-Party Allowed
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED (1) THE PROTRUDING PIPE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, (2) THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, AND (3) THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE ACCUMULATION OF DEBRIS DID NOT APPLY; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Doctrine of Practical Location Re: Boundary Line Dispute Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Although Defendant Was Not Responsible for the Pedestrian Ramp, There Was a... Questions of Fact Raised About Whether the Risks of Participating in a Self-Defense...